THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Consumer Complaint No. 40 of 2015

Date of Institution :13.1.2015

Date of Decision : 10.09.2015

Sweety Kapoor wife of Sh. Vipan Kumar resident of Kothi No. 4, S.G.Enclave, Majitha Road, Amritsar

...Complainant

Vs.

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through SDO Sub Division Gopal Nagar, Amritsar

....Opp.party

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present : For the complainant : Sh.Davinderpal Singh,Advocate

For the opposite party : Sh. Anil Sharma,Advocate

Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1 Present complaint has been filed by Sweety Kapoor under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she is the consumer of electricity vide electric connection bearing account No. A22GT220591W with sanctioned load 10 KW. According to the complainant, she has been making payments of all the electricity bills regularly without any default. Complainant received bill dated 23.12.2014 for a sum of Rs. 58630/- which included Rs. 34192/- as sundry charges , but no detail of the charges was given by the opposite party. Complainant also requested the opposite party to issue fresh bill of actual consumption for the period from 26.10.2014 to 23.12.2014 as the complainant is ready to deposit the same till the final decision of the providing the details of Rs. 34192/-, but the opposite party refused to give any detail of this amount. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to quash the bill dated 23.12.2014. Compensation of Rs. 40000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. On notice opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that electricity meter of the complainant became defective and the meter reader on 22.7.2014 noted the reading of the electricity meter as 18534 , however mentioned the meter status “B” code . On 25.8.2014 meter reader stated the meter reader stated the meter status “D” code The meter of the complainant was replaced vide MCO No. 23/76059 dated 2.10.2014. While auditing account of the consumer, it was noted by the audit party that as per ME Challan No. 482 dated 16.10.2014 the meter was dead on reading 18534. The audit party noted that from the month of 22.7.2014 to 28.10.2014 average bills were issued to the complainant . The audit party overhauled the account of the complainant on the basis of corresponding period of previous year. It was submitted that in the month of 26.10.2014 average bill of 720 units was issued to the complainant whereas the actual consumption was 1292 units, so the opposite party charged the difference of units (1292-720= 572 units) from the complainant. So the total amount of Rs. 29894+4298= 34192 were charged in the bill of 12/2014. The audit party also noted that the amount of Rs. 4298/- were wrongly charged from the complainant, so the adjustment was given to the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavits Ex.C-1 & C-2, copy of bill Ex.C-3.

4. Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh.D.P. Shota, AEE Ex.OP1, copy of consumption data Ex.OP2, copy of half margin Ex.OP3, copy of checking report Ex.OP4..

5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for all the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by all the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties , it is clear that complainant is the consumer of electricity vide electric connection bearing account No. A22GT220591W with sanctioned load 10 KW. The complainant alleges that she has been making payments of all the electricity bills regularly without any default. However, she received bill dated 23.12.2014 for a sum of Rs. 58630/- which included Rs. 34192/- as sundry charges , but no detail of the charges was given by the opposite party. The complainant approached the opposite party to enquire about the details of the amount of sundry charges, but the opposite party refused to give any detail of this amount. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that electricity meter of the complainant became defective and the meter reader on 22.7.2014 noted the reading of the electricity meter as 18534 , however mentioned the meter status “B” code . On 25.8.2014 meter reader stated the meter reader stated the meter status “D” code The meter of the complainant was replaced vide MCO No. 23/76059 dated 2.10.2014. The bills were sent to the complainant on average basis because as per ME Challan No. 482 dated 16.10.2014 the meter was stated to be dead on reading 18534. The audit party overhauled the account of the complainant vide half margin No. 27 dated 21.11.2014 Ex.OP3 and it was mentioned that in the month of average bill of 720 units was issued to the complainant whereas the actual consumption was 1292, so the opposite party charged difference of units 572 (1292 minus 720 = 572 units) from the complainant. So the total amount Rs. 29894 + 4298/- = 34192/- were charged from the complainant in the bill of 12/2014 as per audit report. The audit party also noted that amount of Rs. 4298/- was wrongly charged from the complainant, so the adjustment was given to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that in these circumstances there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the meter of the complainant became defective in the month of 7/2014 . The meter reader found that the electricity meter of the complainant had reading 18534. He mentioned the status of the meter of the complainant as “B” code. The meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO No. 23/76059 dated 2.10.2014. The bills were issued to the complainant on average basis . However, audit party noted that the bills were issued properly on average basis. So the audit party overhauled the account of the complainant for the period from 22.7.2014 to 28.10.2014 vide Half Margin No. 27 dated 21.11.2014 Ex.OP3 and found that a sum of Rs. 34192/- as the amount of difference of units is chargeable from the complainant. The audit party, therefore, added this amount in the current consumption bill of the complainant dated 23.12.2014 Ex.C-3. The opposite party can charge the amount from the complainant in the current consumption bill only after giving prior notice to the complainant as per rule 124.1 of Sales Regulations and Supply Code. Here in this case the opposite party has not issued any prior notice before charging this amount from the complainant in the current consumption bill. Resultantly, the opposite party has violated the procedure as laid down in 124.1 of the Sales Regulations and Supply Code. Resultantly demand raised by the opposite party in the current consumption bill Ex.C-3 dated 23.12.2014 for Rs. 34192/- under the head Sundry Charges is not sustainable in the eyes of law , as such the same is hereby set-aside.

9. However, opposite party can charge this amount from the complainant after following proper procedure i.e. after giving proper notice to the complainant under rule 124.1 of the Sales Regulations and Supply Code and after providing copy of the Half Margin to the complainant i.e. after giving full and proper opportunity to the complainant of being heard. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case , parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

10.09.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)

/R/ Member Member